Focused growth portfolio leaning heavily into mega cap US technology leaders
Report created on May 4, 2024Risk profile
5/7
Diversification profile
2/5
Positions
-
VG Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
VGT - US92204A7028 34.00% -
QQ Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
QQQM - US46138G6492 33.00% -
SC Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
SCHG - US8085243009 33.00%
The portfolio is extremely concentrated in three US-listed equity ETFs, each roughly one‑third of the total. All are growth-oriented, with a big emphasis on large technology and innovative companies. That creates a very focused, high-conviction growth stance rather than a broad “own everything” approach. Structurally, this keeps things simple and easy to monitor, but it also means the portfolio’s fortunes are tightly tied to similar types of companies. For someone seeking growth, this kind of structure can be appealing, but it also requires comfort with larger swings in value and less diversification across business types and economic drivers.
Growth
Over the period from late 2020 to early 2026, $1,000 grew to about $1,984, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.43%. CAGR is like your average yearly “speed” over the whole trip, smoothing out bumps along the way. That slightly beat the US market and clearly outpaced the global market, which is a solid outcome. The tradeoff is a max drawdown of about -35%, meaning there was a point where the portfolio was down roughly a third from its peak. Historically, this has rewarded patience with higher returns, but only for someone able to stay invested through those deep pullbacks. Past results, of course, can’t guarantee similar future performance.
Asset classes
- Stocks 100%
All of the money sits in stocks, with no allocation to bonds, cash, or alternative assets. Equities historically offer higher long‑term returns, but they also experience the biggest drawdowns when markets fall. A 100% stock stance usually suits someone with a long time horizon, good job security or external cash safety nets, and the emotional ability to ride through big swings. Compared with more mixed stock‑bond portfolios, this setup trades stability for growth potential. For anyone feeling uneasy about large temporary losses or with shorter‑term spending needs, adding some defensive assets could eventually help smooth the ride, even if that slightly reduces expected long‑run returns.
Sectors
- Technology 65%
- Telecommunications 11%
- Consumer Discretionary 8%
- Health Care 4%
- Consumer Staples 3%
- Industrials 3%
- Financials 3%
- Basic Materials 1%
- Utilities 1%
Sector-wise, the portfolio is dominated by technology at about 65%, with smaller slices in telecommunications, consumer areas, health care, industrials, and financials. This is a far stronger tech concentration than broad market benchmarks, which are more evenly spread across many sectors. Tech- and innovation-heavy allocations often shine during periods of low rates, strong earnings growth, and optimism about future disruption. On the flip side, they can be hit hard if interest rates rise, regulatory pressure increases, or investor sentiment shifts away from growth stories. The strong sector tilt is not inherently bad; it just means performance will be very sensitive to how one particular part of the market behaves.
Regions
- North America 99%
- Europe Developed 1%
Geographically, the exposure is almost entirely North American, with about 99% in that region and only a tiny slice elsewhere. This aligns closely with many US‑centric growth portfolios and has been beneficial in recent years, as US large-cap growth companies have led global markets. However, it also means results are heavily tied to the US economy, regulatory environment, and currency. Global benchmarks usually include more substantial allocations to other developed and emerging markets. Sticking mostly to one region can amplify both strengths and weaknesses of that market. Staying aware of this home-country concentration helps clarify whether this is a deliberate choice or an area where broader diversification might someday be desirable.
Market capitalization
- Mega-cap 56%
- Large-cap 27%
- Mid-cap 12%
- Small-cap 3%
- Micro-cap 1%
The portfolio leans strongly into the biggest companies: roughly 56% in mega-caps and 27% in large-caps, with only modest exposure down the size spectrum. Mega-caps tend to be more stable businesses with deep resources and dominant positions, which can provide some resilience compared with smaller firms. Yet they are still equities and can be very volatile, especially in growth-heavy sectors. Smaller companies, which are only a small slice here, historically have higher potential returns but more risk and bumpier performance. By anchoring in mega‑caps, this portfolio is effectively betting that today’s giants will continue to drive a large share of future market gains, while accepting less participation in possible small‑cap outperformance.
True holdings
-
NV NVIDIA Corporation 12.76%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AA Apple Inc 11.11%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
-
MS Microsoft Corporation 7.95%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AV Broadcom Inc 3.85%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
-
AM Amazon.com Inc 3.32%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class A 2.73%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
TS Tesla Inc 2.52%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- LS 1x Tesla Tracker ETP Securities GBP
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
ME Meta Platforms Inc. 2.39%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
GO Alphabet Inc Class C 2.32%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
-
WM Walmart Inc. Common Stock 1.08%
Part of fund(s):- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
- Top 10 total 50.02%
Looking under the hood, a handful of mega-cap names dominate the underlying exposure: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, Broadcom, Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla, Meta, and Walmart all show up prominently. Many of these appear across multiple ETFs, which creates hidden concentration even though you only see three ticker symbols. For example, NVIDIA and Apple together already account for nearly a quarter of the portfolio through overlapping ETF holdings. Overlap numbers are based only on top‑10 ETF positions, so real concentration is likely even higher. This amplifies both upside and downside tied to these specific companies, so it’s useful to be sure that such a strong tilt toward a small group of leaders is intentional.
Factors
Factor exposure shows a very low value tilt at 17%, meaning a strong tilt away from cheaper, “value-style” companies and toward higher-priced growth names. Factor exposure is basically how much a portfolio leans into certain traits, like value or momentum, that research links to long‑term returns. A strong anti-value tilt often means paying up for fast‑growing, high‑expectation businesses. That can work extremely well when growth stocks are in favor, but it can lag badly in periods when investors rotate toward more reasonably priced or cyclical companies. Combined with neutral momentum and quality, this suggests a high‑growth profile without much of a cushion from more defensive or bargain-priced areas if market preferences change.
Risk contribution
-
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares
Weight: 34.00% 36.5% -
Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF
Weight: 33.00% 31.8% -
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Weight: 33.00% 31.7%
Risk contribution shows that all three ETFs each drive roughly a third of total volatility, fairly in line with their weightings. Risk contribution measures how much each holding adds to the portfolio’s overall ups and downs, which can differ from just looking at percentages invested. Here, the Vanguard tech ETF contributes slightly more risk than its weight, while the other two contribute slightly less, reflecting the pure tech concentration. Because there are only three positions and they are highly correlated, there is no single outsize risk culprit; the whole portfolio moves as one growth-heavy block. Any effort to change risk would come from shifting weights away from this concentrated cluster, not from trimming some tiny high‑risk outlier.
Redundant positions
-
High correlationInvesco NASDAQ 100 ETFVanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF SharesSchwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
Correlations among the three ETFs are extremely high, between 0.97 and 0.99, meaning they tend to move almost in lockstep. Correlation measures how often assets move together; values close to 1.0 mean very similar behavior. High correlation limits diversification because when one holding drops, the others are likely to drop too. This setup is effectively like owning one blended US growth/tech fund split into three slices, rather than three meaningfully different exposures. The simplicity and clarity are positives, but from a risk‑management standpoint, adding some less correlated assets would generally be needed if the goal were to reduce the impact of any single market style or sector downturn.
Risk vs. return
This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.
Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.
On the risk/return chart, the current portfolio sits on or very close to the efficient frontier, with a Sharpe ratio of 0.58 versus 0.63 at the theoretical optimum. The Sharpe ratio compares return to volatility, like rating how much “reward” you’re getting per unit of risk. Being on the frontier means that, given only these three ETFs, the weights are already using risk pretty efficiently. There’s only a small potential improvement from reweighting toward the optimal or minimum-variance mixes. Any major step‑up in diversification or change in the risk profile would require introducing different types of assets; simply shuffling these three around can fine‑tune the ride, but won’t transform the portfolio’s core growth-heavy character.
Dividends
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.50%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.30%
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Weighted yield (per year) 0.30%
Dividend yield is quite low at around 0.30% overall, which is typical for growth-focused US equities. Dividends are the cash payments companies distribute to shareholders, and over long periods they can form a meaningful part of total returns. In this case, almost all expected return is coming from price appreciation rather than income. That lines up well with a strategy built around capital growth rather than current cash flow. For someone not relying on the portfolio to pay regular bills, a lower yield is not necessarily a problem, but it does mean that in flat markets, there is little income buffer to soften the feeling of slow or sideways performance.
Ongoing product costs
- Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF 0.15%
- Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF 0.04%
- Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF Shares 0.10%
- Weighted costs total (per year) 0.10%
Costs are impressively low, with an average total expense ratio around 0.10%. The Schwab ETF is especially cheap at 0.04%, while the others are still well below the cost of most active funds. Fees may look small, but over decades they quietly erode returns, so keeping them low is a big positive. Every 0.10% saved annually can compound into a meaningful difference in long‑term wealth. This cost profile aligns well with best practices for growth investing: letting the underlying companies do the heavy lifting while you keep friction as low as possible. From a fee perspective, this setup is already in excellent shape and doesn’t need much tweaking.
What next?
Ready to invest in this portfolio?
Select a broker that fits your needs and watch for low fees to maximize your returns.
Create your own report?
Join our community!
The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.
Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.
Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.
Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.
By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.
Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.
Help us improve Insightfolio
Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey